HOME
Vol VII, Issue 2
Date of Publication: May 07, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2022.011
Views
, PDF Downloads:
DISCUSSION
Response to Nikhil Govind – What is a knowledge system?
Abstract:
The editorial by Nikhil Govind in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics is disturbing because of its epistemological connotations [1]. In this rejoinder, I will not address the merits or demerits of indigenous traditions in medicine, or homeopathy (which, though not an indigenous tradition is part of what is infelicitously called AYUSH – Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy). What I am concerned with here are the questions of knowledge, the scientific method, and its connotations.
Copyright and license ©Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 2022: Open Access and Distributed under the Creative Commons license ( CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits only non-commercial and non-modified sharing in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Leave a Reply
Comments:
I thank both Dr Govind and Dr Thomas for such a discussion. But I request both to clear the and if possible address specific systems. Indeed, no system (whether “knowledge system” or “healing system” or “system of medicine”) is complete. Rather there would be no meaning of research if it is complete!
Dr Thomas searched and found the Concept of IKS to be confusing and unclear. But NEP2020, AICTE, and even https://iksindia.org have information about that (not exclusively giving a definition, but a rough idea and providing courses/books for the enthusiasts and faculties). But Dr Thomas seemed to miss that probably because “these are beyond his scope or purview”.
Second, he is sceptical whether a “so-called” “unscientific” “medical” or “healing” system like AYUSH be considered IKS. If we look at the scope of IKS very strictly this question might seem obvious. But IKS or traditional or so-called “regressive science” aims, is probably understanding the modern with the help of ancient or cultural background. Can we say not a single patient consults “unqualified healers” before coming to us? or is it not more factual that in remote areas it is these “unqualified healers” are more important than mere qualified AYUSH or Allopathic physicians? How do you apply generalism in your practice if you do not want to consider this aspect? Dr Thomas thinks generalism is only for family physicians.
Similarly while accepting the importance of a system whether it is a mere belief system or a “scientific” knowledge system, we must give some clear idea or introduction about it, or else it becomes confusing. But Dr Govind’s writing seemed not to address this issue.
Practising Yoga, and believing in natural or herbal systems how can be regressing is not clear. I understand the unscientific use of anything including “scientific” antibiotics is not science and we can face its consequences, but while mentioning or classifying things into scientific and unscientific, Dr Thomas seemed to miss clarifying these.